WHATFOR, WHY, AND WHEREFORE

Some words go in and out of fashion.  Often.

Our latest is “purpose.”  Basic, simple, and oh-so-germaine to the marketplace, the word is being applied by many experts today to brands, as in ‘purpose-driven brands.’  Or some such. 

Actually, the Pepsi folks reinvigorated the word in its mid-2000s’ acronym PwP (performance with purpose, we believe).  Many followed the leader. 

Now, much of purpose’s usefulness in 2016 and beyond is to point consumers away from short-term thinking and toward the company’s higher goals and aims.  There’s much ado about ensuring that employees and other stakeholders believe that the business is true to its societal goals, and that it really and truly produces good for itself and for society.

Why the resurrection of purpose?   For any number of reasons:

  • Millennials’ need for Planet-conscious work, something to stand for
  • A very real talent void,  a/k/a the hole between retiring Boomers and up-and-coming Ms and Gen Zs
  • The cry for employee commitment that lasts longer than a job stint
  • Creation of positive, productive business cultures that do all of the above … and more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, a focus on purpose also manages expectations around profits and performance, reassuring investors that a longer-term perspective is being adopted (and yes, we are cynics).  It is refreshing, though, to hear of products that will share consumer views, help change behaviors, and deliver at least a miniscule part of the solution to world ills. 

Much like in the 19th and 20th centuries, when corporations built America’s first railroads, introduced cars to the masses, treated diabetes, and made air travel affordable.

PRESIDENTIAL PARALLELS, ONE

We were seriously entranced with Bloomberg Businessweek’s op-ed on why Hillary Clinton lost her first POTUS campaign.

So much so that we read it twice, and mused about parallels to our business.

The reasons for her demise, asserts writer-pundit Joshua Green, were multiple, specifically:

  • No clear overarching justification for candidacy
  • Not focusing squarely on the issues
  • Trying to be all things to all people
  • Delaying a response to uproars and turmoils and
  • Not recognizing her own shortcomings.

First things first:  The business case.  Right now, it’s clear that Hillary is concentrating on middle-class economic advancement and, as a sub-theme, making Washington work better.  That’s a singular target – and though overall motifs might vary (depending on the audience), messaging potentially will carry the same narrative.  It’s simple, impactful, and just might be as powerful as Obama’s ‘change.’ 

On the other hand, it could be subjected to the candidate’s (and her/his strategists’) boredom and continual polling.  Hear it now:  “The economy has changed; the middle class isn’t as worried as before.”  Or:  “Xyz is much more critical these days; let’s zero in on that issue.”   And:  “The opposition is attacking us on abc now; we need to answer.”

Squirming yet?  Check how you’d respond to these questions:

  • How often do we abandon our messaging at the drop of a survey – and latch onto another hot topic? 
  • Are we easily dissuaded from pursuing original goals? 
  • Can we withstand corporate requests and continue our mission?

Next up:   The stuff that campaigns are made of …

OF SWISS ARMY KNIVES ... AND US

Lately, our conversations have been filled with “whys,” not statements of facts or certainties.

One reason:  (Occasionally) unharnessed curiosity, which leads us to tons of questions, zip answers.  Another, we think, is due to a recent yearning for utility, for function, for concrete actions and behaviors.  Asking why gets us, eventually, to outcomes, to the goals our clients and our companies want to achieve. 

Which, in themselves, are usually aspirational, rather than realizational.  Yet the demands placed on each of us in our worlds, from branding and change to design and communications, are almost always for useful objectives.  Like these: 

“Get more of our targets to ‘like’ us.”

               “Create apps to drive purchases.”

          “Personalize the brand-consumer conversation.”

     “We must be able to measure an increase in engagement – and retention.”

It’s the behaviors that matter today – not only the ultimate buy, but also the universe of buy-ins. 

But will out doings activate useful results?  A few decades ago, former White House Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater claimed, “The press briefing today I believe has lost much of its usefulness.”  [Sad:  Still true in 2013.]  How many employees understand what HR decisions, from benefits to performance, they need to make – and do so correctly, in their own interests?  Do our campaigns, internal and external, help our constituencies save time, deepen experiences, broaden connections, and/or provide more control?  Will we, in short, be measured against corporate dimensions of usefulness?

Dilbert creator Scott Adams summarizes our dilemma well:  “Be careful that what you write does not offend anybody or cause problems within the company.  The safest approach is to remove all useful information.”